While I enjoyed reading this article, I don't think I agree with it's major thesis. "A title has to tell you everything you need to know right up front, on the box, to give players new and old alike an understanding of what the game is going to focus on, set the theme, set a tone, and even clue us in to the major plot points." That seems to be the "thesis statement" for the article. But it's doubtful that it can be supported, and I don't think the article came even close to doing so.

"The Burning Crusade" title certainly did _not_, by itself, match up. No hint of Outland, for example, or of the new races-- the major features of the expansion. You could possibly extract "The Burning Legion" from the title, but really, it's reaching to claim that the name itself told much about the expansion. Certainly not for "players new".

WotLK is a little more specific, so I won't try to argue that one. I think it's arguable, but I'll move on.

As a title, "Cataclysm" is even more vague than "Mists of Pandaria". It simply tells us there will be an upheaval of some kind-- and it doesn't necessarily denote a physical, geographic one, even. Does it "tell you everything you need to know right up front"? Not in my opinion. None of us knew, based upon the title alone, what the expansion was going to be like. We had to be told via various sources, including the BlizzCon reveal.

The point is, the claim this article makes about a title is far from proven. Two exceptions (at least) out of four makes it a very weak argument.

I agree, we don't know yet what "The Mist of Pandaria" is going to be. But the same was true about Cataclysm at this point in its development, for example. And I think it's unfair to say that game titles in general, and the titles to WoW expansions in particular, have the burden of telling us "everything we need to know". And I certainly don't think you can say that WoW's titles have met that burden in the past.

Reply